Daniel Braniss wrote:
>
> > On 22 Aug 2015, at 14:59, Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Braniss wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Aug 22, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:00:35AM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>>>> Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >>>>>> On 08/19/15 09:42, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:00:52AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 08/18/15 23:54, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ouch! Yes, I now see that the code that counts the # of mbufs is
> >>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> code that adds the tcp/ip header mbuf.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In my opinion, this should be fixed by setting if_hw_tsomaxsegcount
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> whatever
> >>>>>>>>> the driver provides - 1. It is not the driver's responsibility to
> >>>>>>>>> know if
> >>>>>>>>> a tcp/ip
> >>>>>>>>> header mbuf will be added and is a lot less confusing that
> >>>>>>>>> expecting
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> driver
> >>>>>>>>> author to know to subtract one. (I had mistakenly thought that
> >>>>>>>>> tcp_output() had
> >>>>>>>>> added the tc/ip header mbuf before the loop that counts mbufs in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> list.
> >>>>>>>>> Btw,
> >>>>>>>>> this tcp/ip header mbuf also has leading space for the MAC layer
> >>>>>>>>> header.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Rick,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your question is good. With the Mellanox hardware we have separate
> >>>>>>>> so-called inline data space for the TCP/IP headers, so if the TCP
> >>>>>>>> stack
> >>>>>>>> subtracts something, then we would need to add something to the
> >>>>>>>> limit,
> >>>>>>>> because then the scatter gather list is only used for the data part.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think all drivers in tree don't subtract 1 for
> >>>>>>> if_hw_tsomaxsegcount. Probably touching Mellanox driver would be
> >>>>>>> simpler than fixing all other drivers in tree.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe it can be controlled by some kind of flag, if all the three
> >>>>>>>> TSO
> >>>>>>>> limits should include the TCP/IP/ethernet headers too. I'm pretty
> >>>>>>>> sure
> >>>>>>>> we want both versions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmm, I'm afraid it's already complex. Drivers have to tell almost
> >>>>>>> the same information to both bus_dma(9) and network stack.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't forget that not all drivers in the tree set the TSO limits
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>> if_attach(), so possibly the subtraction of one TSO fragment needs to
> >>>>>> go
> >>>>>> into ip_output() ....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Ok, I realized that some drivers may not know the answers before
> >>>>> ether_ifattach(),
> >>>>> due to the way they are configured/written (I saw the use of
> >>>>> if_hw_tsomax_update()
> >>>>> in the patch).
> >>>>
> >>>> I was not able to find an interface that configures TSO parameters
> >>>> after if_t conversion. I'm under the impression
> >>>> if_hw_tsomax_update() is not designed to use this way. Probably we
> >>>> need a better one?(CCed to Gleb).
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it is subtracted as a part of the assignment to if_hw_tsomaxsegcount
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> tcp_output()
> >>>>> at line#791 in tcp_output() like the following, I don't think it should
> >>>>> matter if the
> >>>>> values are set before ether_ifattach()?
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * Subtract 1 for the tcp/ip header mbuf that
> >>>>> * will be prepended to the mbuf chain in this
> >>>>> * function in the code below this block.
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> if_hw_tsomaxsegcount = tp->t_tsomaxsegcount - 1;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't have a good solution for the case where a driver doesn't plan
> >>>>> on
> >>>>> using the
> >>>>> tcp/ip header provided by tcp_output() except to say the driver can add
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> to the
> >>>>> setting to compensate for that (and if they fail to do so, it still
> >>>>> works,
> >>>>> although
> >>>>> somewhat suboptimally). When I now read the comment in sys/net/if_var.h
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> is clear
> >>>>> what it means, but for some reason I didn't read it that way before? (I
> >>>>> think it was
> >>>>> the part that said the driver didn't have to subtract for the headers
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> confused me?)
> >>>>> In any case, we need to try and come up with a clear definition of what
> >>>>> they need to
> >>>>> be set to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can now think of two ways to deal with this:
> >>>>> 1 - Leave tcp_output() as is, but provide a macro for the device driver
> >>>>> authors to use
> >>>>> that sets if_hw_tsomaxsegcount with a flag for "driver uses tcp/ip
> >>>>> header mbuf",
> >>>>> documenting that this flag should normally be true.
> >>>>> OR
> >>>>> 2 - Change tcp_output() as above, noting that this is a workaround for
> >>>>> confusion w.r.t.
> >>>>> whether or not if_hw_tsomaxsegcount should include the tcp/ip header
> >>>>> mbuf and
> >>>>> update the comment in if_var.h to reflect this. Then drivers that
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>> use the
> >>>>> tcp/ip header mbuf can increase their value for if_hw_tsomaxsegcount
> >>>>> by
> >>>>> 1.
> >>>>> (The comment should also mention that a value of 35 or greater is
> >>>>> much
> >>>>> preferred to
> >>>>> 32 if the hardware will support that.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Both works for me. My preference is 2 just because it's very
> >>>> common for most drivers that use tcp/ip header mbuf.
> >>> Thanks for this comment. I tend to agree, both for the reason you state
> >>> and
> >>> also
> >>> because the patch is simple enough that it might qualify as an errata for
> >>> 10.2.
> >>>
> >>> I am hoping Daniel Braniss will be able to test the patch and let us know
> >>> if it
> >>> improves performance with TSO enabled?
> >>
> >> send me the patch and I’ll test it ASAP.
> >> danny
> >>
> > Patch is attached. The one for head will also include an update to the
> > comment
> > in sys/net/if_var.h, but that isn't needed for testing.
>
>
> well, the plot thickens.
>
> Yesterday, before running the new kernel, I decided to re run my test, and to
> my surprise
> i was getting good numbers, about 300MGB/s with and without TSO.
>
> this morning, the numbers were again bad, around 70MGB/s,what the ^%$#@!
>
> so, after some coffee, I run some more tests, and some conclusions:
> using a netapp(*) as the nfs client:
> - doing
> ifconfig ix0 tso or -tso
> does some magic and numbers are back to normal - for a while
>
> using another Fbsd/zfs as client all is nifty, actually a bit faster than the
> netapp (not a fair
> comparison, since the zfs client is not heavily used) and I can’t see any
> degradation.
>
I assume you meant "server" and not "client" above.
> btw, this is with the patch applied, but was seeing similar numbers before
> the patch.
>
> running with tso, initially I get around 300MGB/s, but after a while(sorry
> can’t be more scientific)
> it drops down to about half, and finally to a pathetic 70MGB/s
>
Ok, so it sounds like tso isn't the issue. (At least it seems the patch,
which I believe is needed, doesn't cause a regression.)
All I can suggest is:
- looking at the ix stats (I know nothing about them), but if you post them
maybe someone conversant with the chip can help? (Before and after
degredation.)
- if you captured packets for a short period of time when degraded and then
after doing "ifconfig", looking at the packet capture in wireshark might give
some indication of what changes?
- For this I'd be focused on the TCP layer (window sizes, etc) and timing of
packets.
--> I don't know if there is a packet capture tool like tcpdump on a Netapp, but
that might be better than capturing them on the client, in case tcpdump
affects
the outcome. However, tcpdump run on the client would be a fallback, I
think.
The other thing is the degradation seems to cut the rate by about half each
time.
300-->150-->70 I have no idea if this helps to explain it.
Have fun with it, rick
> *: while running the tests I monitored the Netapp, and nothing out of the
> ordinary there.
>
> cheers,
> danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
